4.Risk of confession serving as a basis for conviction 78.Paraguay’s Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the police from taking a statement from the suspect in the course of an investigation (art. 90) and makes it obligatory to inform the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judge(art. 296) within six hours of the initial arrest. 79.The SPT received repeated and concordant allegations from persons deprived of their liberty concerning the use of forms of torture and ill-treatment by police officers, particularly during the initial stages of detention in police stations, in order to obtain confessions and other information regarding the supposed commission of offences. According to various testimonies, these confessions obtained through torture and ill-treatment are used as evidence to justify pretrial imprisonment, which — as already noted — is inimical to the right of defence and conducive to unfair convictions. 80.One of the minors interviewed claimed to have been subjected to the “dry submarine” treatment (i.e. suffocation by means of a plastic bag) three times on the night of his detention at the hands of a number of policemen, who threw a glass of cold water in his face on each of the three occasions on which he passed out. He also described having his hair pulled, being kneed in the stomach and chest, receiving blows to the windpipe, punches and kicks to all parts of his body, slaps on the ears and neck, all with the aim of making him confess to a murder he claims not to have committed, having already confessed to the theft of a motorcycle. This minor added that the statement he signed was in Spanish, which was a language he did not know since he was of Brazilian nationality. He also declared that he was facing a trial for murder on the basis of the statement in question. 81.Another minor interviewed alleged that he had been subjected to the “dry submarine” treatment and that he had been punched in the head and received blows all over his body to make him reveal the whereabouts of a stolen object as well as to confess to other offences that he claimed not to have committed. 82. The SPT urges the State party to introduce due process safeguards so that detainees in police custody are not subject to any kind of pressure to make them confess to the commission of a crime or to obtain evidence unlawfully. In particular, the State party should ensure that no person under interrogation shall be subject to violence, threats or methods of interrogation that impair his decision-making capacity or his judgement. 83. Any statement signed by detained persons should be in a language they know and understand. 84. The SPT considers that making it possible for a conviction to be based on a suspect ’ s confession alone opens the way to potential abuses of process, including the use of torture and ill-treatment to obtain confessions. To guard against such abuses, the SPT recommends that the State party guarantee the application in practice of article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so that statements taken by the police during detention — in violation of the aforesaid provision — are not taken into account by judges in deciding on interim measures and do not serve to incriminate or convict a suspect. In accordance with article 15 of the Convention against Torture, a State party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. 5.Right to inform a third party of detention 85.The right of persons deprived of their liberty to inform a person of their choice (family, friend or other) of their detention represents a basic guarantee against torture and ill-treatment. In Paraguay, this right has constitutional status(article 12.2 of the Constitution) and seems to be generally observed in practice. 86.The police interviewed by the SPT all stated that persons deprived of their liberty were provided with a telephone to make a local call on their arrival at the police station. In some cases, the police said they had allowed persons deprived of their liberty to use their own cellphones to notify their families of their arrest. These statements were not contradicted by the detainees interviewed, who generally acknowledged that their families had been notified of their arrest. Some of the persons interviewed had been arrested at home or in the presence of someone known to them who later informed their family. 87.Given that, as the SPT was told, the police stations did not have a budget to feed the persons deprived of their freedom, who therefore depended on their families to supply them with food or money to obtain it, the right to inform a third party of detention assumes particular importance, both from the standpoint of due process and from that of meeting basic needs. In this connection, the SPT welcomed the fact that visiting hours in police stations are generally flexible, thereby enabling persons deprived of their liberty to be supplied with food by their families. 6.Right to legal aid as a safeguard against torture and ill-treatment 88.Access to a lawyer by persons in police custody is a key safeguard against torture and ill-treatment. The presence of a lawyer can dissuade officers who in other circumstances could try to obtain information from detainees by means of coercion and threat. Detainees have the right to the assistance of a lawyer, and the competent authority should inform them of this right soon after their arrest and should ensure that they have adequate means to exercise it. The detainee has the right to consult with a lawyer in private from the start of his detention, and where he has been the victim of torture and/or ill-treatment this access to defence will facilitate access to complaint and prevention mechanisms. 89.According to concordant testimonies received from persons interviewed by the SPT, public defenders do not visit people detained in police stations. Similarly, most detainees claimed not to have been able to speak with their counsel even during the hearings with representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s Office or in appearances before the judge. The SPT found that the situation is different when a person deprived of liberty is defended by a private lawyer. The SPT wishes to repeat that it considers it fundamental in order to avoid situations that may give rise to torture and ill-treatment that the State party should guarantee the right for a lawyer or